> On Sat 20 Feb, Andrew C. Greenberg wrote:
>> Tim suggests:
>>
>> > There are some bits available in the method headers
> [snip]
>>
>> Isn't the idea to avoid things that increase the overhead of message
>> send?  Is the feature of precluding primitives at runtime (since
>> compile-time is relatively straightforward) so valuable a feature
>> that it justifies a separate check against a method header flag for
>> EVERY uncached message send?
> Definitely we avoid adding unneccessary cycles to message sending.
> I'm not quite sure about your 'precluding primitives at runtime' snetence
> means, so forgive me if I get the wrong end of the stick!

Sorry -- slip of the keyboard.  Meant privates, not primitives.